patogordo wrote:why don't you consult the legislative history for guidance

I don't expect TLS to be the only (or maybe even best) resource, but I do think a lot of the people on here are knowledgeable about financial aid and PSLF, so I'm trying to see if anyone here can come up with reasons it would either be technically impossible, unlawful, or financially useless first.

Plus I'm somewhat lazy and posting here is easier and less time consuming than any research I'd do otherwise.

Do you know of any specific reasons why it wouldn't be beneficial or legal?

Even if it were legal and you were actually working 30 hours a week on top of your biglaw job, there's no way it could be beneficial because no one in biglaw could have an extra 30 hours a week of time on their hands to devote to more work, and even if they did, the benefits would only be equal to the saved loan payments from the extra years of forgiveness. You could calculate how much this is, but even on the super high end it would be like $30k a year. Why the hell would you work an extra 1500 hours a year for an extra $30k when you're already making over $160?

patogordo wrote:that's good, i read an article saying 80% of successful scam charity founders cite laziness as the prime factor in their success.

I'm sorry if it came off wrong, but I said the lazy part jokingly. I doubt there are many "lazy" people on this forum, pursuing law school, or with any ambitions of starting nonprofits (of any kind). A lot of work will go into establishing this and like I said, my decision to pursue it is not dependent on the PSLF consequences.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to make this personal. It's a scenario involving questionable legality and student loans and I've presented it on a forum for future lawyers who will largely be financing with loans. It seemed appropriate.

badaboom61 wrote:the benefits would only be equal to the saved loan payments from the extra years of forgiveness. You could calculate how much this is, but even on the super high end it would be like $30k a year. Why the hell would you work an extra 1500 hours a year for an extra $30k when you're already making over $160?

This is a good point, and it understates how bad the idea is because you'd still have to make your PAYE payments using your biglaw salary for as long as you do both.

badaboom61 wrote:the benefits would only be equal to the saved loan payments from the extra years of forgiveness. You could calculate how much this is, but even on the super high end it would be like $30k a year. Why the hell would you work an extra 1500 hours a year for an extra $30k when you're already making over $160?

This is a good point, and it understates how bad the idea is because you'd still have to make your PAYE payments using your biglaw salary for as long as you do both.

If the salary over 10 years stayed under 200k and PAYE was 10%, that would be under 20k paid per year. So over 10 years you'd pay back 150-200k it seems. If you started with 250-300k in debt, that seems like it could be a decent savings.

patogordo wrote:that's good, i read an article saying 80% of successful scam charity founders cite laziness as the prime factor in their success.

I'm sorry if it came off wrong, but I said the lazy part jokingly. I doubt there are many "lazy" people on this forum, pursuing law school, or with any ambitions of starting nonprofits (of any kind). A lot of work will go into establishing this and like I said, my decision to pursue it is not dependent on the PSLF consequences.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to make this personal. It's a scenario involving questionable legality and student loans and I've presented it on a forum for future lawyers who will largely be financing with loans. It seemed appropriate.

If I understand you correctly, the answer to your question will have 0 impact on the path you pursue? You're going to set up this non-profit no matter what?

Also, FYI, asking for legal advice from a bunch of 0Ls is a pretty stupid move. But you have established yourself solidly as an asshole and scammer, so there's that.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, but seriously. How do you think you'd actually work 35 hours a week on top of biglaw? That is, actually work, not be a figurehead? No one's going to give you credit for being a figurehead.

You clearly don't understand. He's going to leave his phone ringer on while he sleeps, so if anything comes up at the non-profit during the night while no one is working, the people who aren't working can call him for advice. Then his sleep time counts as public interest work. Done and done.

patogordo wrote:that's good, i read an article saying 80% of successful scam charity founders cite laziness as the prime factor in their success.

I'm sorry if it came off wrong, but I said the lazy part jokingly. I doubt there are many "lazy" people on this forum, pursuing law school, or with any ambitions of starting nonprofits (of any kind). A lot of work will go into establishing this and like I said, my decision to pursue it is not dependent on the PSLF consequences.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to make this personal. It's a scenario involving questionable legality and student loans and I've presented it on a forum for future lawyers who will largely be financing with loans. It seemed appropriate.

If I understand you correctly, the answer to your question will have 0 impact on the path you pursue? You're going to set up this non-profit no matter what?

Also, FYI, asking for legal advice from a bunch of 0Ls is a pretty stupid move. But you have established yourself solidly as an asshole and scammer, so there's that.

I wouldn't say that the answer would have 0 impact. I'm interested in setting it up because I think it could be successful and provide a legitimate service to disadvantaged people. If on top of that it had added financial benefits that I haven't been expecting then I may step up my pursuit of it.

Also, I'm not really asking for advice (legal or otherwise). I'm interested in finding out what rules the situation may or may not fall under and if it would be possible/financially beneficial. It's more about what "can" be done than what "should" be done.

I honestly didn't expect people to be so sensitive about this. It's not personal lol.

[quote="A. Nony Mouse"]No, but seriously. How do you think you'd actually work 35 hours a week on top of biglaw? That is, actually work, not be a figurehead? No one's going to give you credit for being a figurehead.[/quote

I guess this is one of the main points. I haven't seen any real definition of what positions would and wouldn't count. Would a founder who established the company and then served as a full time consultant (figurehead) according to the company be technically disqualified?

Alternatively, if biglaw hours are causing the issue for some people considering it, what about a job that had lower expected hours? If you worked a private sector job for 50 hours a week and 31 simultaneously in a nonprofit, would that be possible/legal under PSLF? It doesn't seem to offer the same financial benefits, but it's essentially the same question.

As I've already pointed out, it doesn't matter whether the company calls you full time, you have to work an annual average of 30 hours a week. It's in the PSLF FAQ (which is extremely easy to google). If you want to certify yourself as "working" 30+ hours a week by "consulting" that's on you, but I wouldn't want to face an audit.

I think the point is that you look like you're trying to take advantage of something not intended to benefit you - or that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It may not be personal to you, but it looks sort of slimy to people who chose not to go the biglaw route because they actually want to do public service and who actually need to take PAYE and PSLF to cope with their debt.

180kickflip wrote:I honestly didn't expect people to be so sensitive about this. It's not personal lol.

Even if this isn't illegal, it's unethical. Some of us have worked in public service before, and you're trying to scam a program designed to help people who forgo a higher salary in order to work for the public. It's a shitty thing to do, so it's not surprising that people aren't chomping at the bit to help you do this shitty thing that your shitty brain cooked up.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:As I've already pointed out, it doesn't matter whether the company calls you full time, you have to work an annual average of 30 hours a week. It's in the PSLF FAQ (which is extremely easy to google). If you want to certify yourself as "working" 30+ hours a week by "consulting" that's on you, but I wouldn't want to face an audit.

I think the point is that you look like you're trying to take advantage of something not intended to benefit you - or that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It may not be personal to you, but it looks sort of slimy to people who chose not to go the biglaw route because they actually want to do public service and who actually need to take PAYE and PSLF to cope with their debt.

Although I am trying to take advantage of something that wasn’t intended to benefit me, I don’t think that’s so uncommon when looking at people using PAYE or PSLF. Not to say that I actually feel this way (I clearly don’t), but a lot of people would say that anyone earning a high income and using PAYE is unethical. It may be legal, but it’s not what the program was intended for. The same ethical argument could probably be applied to people who never wanted to do public service, but ended up using PSLF when they missed out on big law. A lot of people would probably say those people aren’t who the program was intended to help. Taxpayers may see any prelaw student counting on PSLF, IBR, PAYE, or LRAPs in their decision to attend school as extremely unethical. Isn’t that also trying to have your cake and eat it too, when you go to a school knowing that you will never be able to pay for it?

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I just can’t see why someone who chose not to go the biglaw route because they actually want to do public service would be justified in taking this personally. That person chose to go to law school. And if they have too much debt, then they chose to go at a price they couldn’t afford. They don’t need to use PAYE or PSLF. They can take responsibility for their choices and live in debt. Otherwise they are just taking advantage of a program that will result in other people being forced to pay for their poor decisions (intended use or not). I don’t think such a person should be pointing any fingers here.

180kickflip wrote:I honestly didn't expect people to be so sensitive about this. It's not personal lol.

Even if this isn't illegal, it's unethical. Some of us have worked in public service before, and you're trying to scam a program designed to help people who forgo a higher salary in order to work for the public. It's a shitty thing to do, so it's not surprising that people aren't chomping at the bit to help you do this shitty thing that your shitty brain cooked up.

I can understand how some people would think this is unethical. I’m just surprised to hear it so much on here, where so many people use whatever program they can however they can to minimize their debt.

I’m also surprised that people see it as such a negative when the whole idea is dependent on me starting a non-profit that would do a lot of good. The only issue seems to be the hours I would work in it down the line. Calling me a “scammer” or “slimy” or “shitty” because I may not be in an active role the whole time is a bit much. I’d expect people focused on public service and sacrificing to help people, to focus more on the greater good. What really benefits society more, a person working biglaw and paying off their debts in 10 years, or a person who establishes a (hopefully) successful non-profit while working biglaw and paying only the majority of their debts in 10 years? I guess it could go either way, but I’m more inclined to choose the latter.

People who are adhering to a particular ethical code tend to take proposed violations of that code personally. Welcome to the world.

I suspect most of us aren't really convinced that you can actually start a non-profit that accomplishes any good while working biglaw.

And PAYE doesn't have the same public policy purpose as PSLF. It's just a debt management program. If the powers that be decide that it's better for people with high student loans to pay some rather than not be able to pay any, that works for anyone. And I don't care whether someone wanted to do public service originally or if it was a backup when they struck out at biglaw - the point is that they are working in public service for whatever reason, and don't have the biglaw salary backing them up. There's no personal passion requirement.

But feel free to keep rationalizing. No one here can answer whether it's legal (assuming you could actually work 30 hours/wk on top of biglaw), and you've seen how well received the idea is, so it's on you to decide how you want to handle that.